Debates of March 3rd, 1997

Tobacco Bill

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Listen, Mr. Speaker, I am being asked to accommodate people, to help. We are saying that the deadline will be October 1, 1998 in order to help those affected make the adjustment. The legislation was to take effect on the date it was passed by Parliament. It is a bill that opposition members supported. They voted in favour of it. But they are behaving like political opportunists and no longer care right now about the health of Quebec's young people.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is showing his ignorance of the Standing Orders.

[Some hon members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Dear colleagues, I would simply like to ask you not to use too many words that could be construed-

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say. Ignorance means that one does not know. I will put it another way. It is scandalous that, after 30 years in Parliament, the Prime Minister does not understand that it is possible to vote in favour of a principle at second reading, because that is what is being voted on at second reading, and against a bill at third reading, because we do not like the means being proposed. That is what I meant.

The fact is that the same minister who wanted to ban raw milk cheese because it was a risk to people is now presenting us with a bill that makes no sense.

I ask the Prime Minister whether there is a minister or a Liberal member from Quebec who will rise on that side of the House to defend Quebec and Quebec's interests? Let him rise so we can see him.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is the very reason we agreed to give two years to the group in question so it could adjust to the situation.

When the bill was introduced, it was to take effect this year. Because of the representations made, we allowed a one year extension. We have not completely banned sponsorships by the tobacco companies. We have compromised in this connection. They can still advertise. There will be regulations allowing them to advertise in certain locations.

But one thing is important, and that is that we must look after the health of young people. It is not acceptable to have an attitude-

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Either we do something, or we do not. The fact is that the opposition party does not have the courage to say that it puts the health of young Quebecers, of young Canadians, first.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are ways of discouraging smoking and improving the health of our young people, without at the same time jeopardiz-

ing the future of cultural and sporting events. It is like chewing gum and walking at the same time, some people just cannot do it.

A number of cultural and sporting events are in danger. The Montreal Grand Prix, the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix, the jazz festival, the Benson and Hedges fireworks, the Just for Laughs festival, the Quebec summer festival, the Montreal international tennis championships.

Does the Prime Minister realize that all of these events are now in jeopardy because of this bill, which the Montreal Chamber of Commerce labels as fundamentalist legislation by the ayatollahs of tobacco?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I can well understand my colleague's concern for support of the arts and cultural groups in this country.

As the hon. member and as his colleague fully know, there is no banning of sponsorship promotion. There is a restriction of sponsorship promotion.

It would be nice in this House if members of the official opposition could stand in their places and voice their concerns, as they have on this issue, when it comes to the health and care of young children in this country. I wish they would stand with children on this issue.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if there were a Grand Prix on the Cabot Trail, the Ayatollah from Nova Scotia would sing a different tune.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I would ask you to take great care with your choice of words. Would my hon. colleague please ask his question?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which one you were referring to, but I will go on.

Thousands of jobs are at stake, in Montreal alone. This means hundreds of millions of dollars in economic spinoffs jeopardized by a bad decision by this government.

Outside of all the verbiage by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, what does the Prime Minister have to say today to the thousands of people who will end up unemployed because of this bill, which goes beyond what its objectives ought to be, of reducing tobacco use, rather than doing away with Montreal's sports and cultural events, as this government is doing its darndest to do?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we are now seeing what a leadership campaign is all about.

The hon. member opposite forgets to put a few facts on the table: 40,000 lives each and every year from tobacco consumption; over 14,000 in the province of Quebec. I ask the hon. member opposite and the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois to stand up for once and support the young people and the children of this country.

Pensions

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Saturday was the deadline for people to contribute to RRSPs, so retirement income has definitely been on the minds of Canadians.

They want to know why, though, when it comes to the Canada pension plan they have to pay more for less, 73 per cent more. They want to know why 10 per cent of their salary is only going to get them $9,000 a year through CPP when the same amount invested in the safest RRSP would get them $26,000 a year. That is nearly three times more than with the Canada pension plan.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How can he rip off young Canadians by asking them to pay more for less?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that young and middle aged Canadians will have some support when the time comes for them to retire. They have contributed for years to this plan and the Reform Party wants to get rid of it. All those who have paid into the plan for years will lose money if we do not intervene at this time.

However, the Reform Party is always happy to ensure that the rich will be better off and the poor will pay.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say somebody who opted out of the MP pension plan hardly has a guarantee of being rich down the road. Therefore I have a vested interest in making sure that the Canada pension plan or something like it is going to work for Canadians when they get old.

He says that he wants to make sure that young Canadians will have some support. I agree with that but I think they should have more than some support. Let us get them into private RRSPs so they can get a lot more than just some support. Older Canadians will also feel the pinch.

Under the Liberal plan a self-employed couple aged 60 will pay an additional $4,436 in CPP premiums and get $1,000 less for it when we factor in the Liberal clawback of the new seniors benefit.

I again ask the Prime Minister how can he rip off older Canadians by asking them to pay more for less?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is a program that was organized by the federal government with all the provincial governments. This is an agreement that was signed with the provincial governments, the government of Mr. Klein in Alberta and the government of the premier of Ontario.

All the governments are telling the Canadian people that the Canadian pension plan is needed for the future. There is unanimous consent in the land. There is only the Reform Party that has some very funny goals about preserving the future for the younger generation.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister talks about unanimity in the land I have heard that phrase somewhere before in this Chamber and it just blew up in their face in the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.

This government has a real double standard when it comes to pensions. The Prime Minister is asking Canadians to pay more for less but he certainly is not making the same demand on his MPs. Canadians are being asked to pay 10 per cent of their pay cheques for a measly $9,000 in Canada pension plan pensions.

The Liberal members opposite, and of course those others who have put into the MP pension plan, are paying 10 per cent of their pay cheques but they are going to get $40,000 plus in MP pensions.

Let me ask the Prime Minister this. How can he rationalize asking Canadians to pay more for less when Liberals pay less for more and continue to enjoy their lavish gold plated pension plan?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if we were to believe what the Reform Party has proposed on that score it would cost workers 15 per cent of their income to meet the goals it has in mind.

We are making sure, because we are acting now, that it will not be 12, 13 and 14 per cent but it will be 10 per cent, and that will guarantee to the Canadian people that by the year 2020 we will have a Canada pension plan. This is what the Canadian people want. It is what the provincial governments want. It is what the Canadian people will get.

Tobacco Legislation

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

Faced with Liberal militants who were worried about the survival of cultural and sports events, the Minister of Labour, who is also responsible for the Liberals' election campaign in Quebec, said on the weekend that after tobacco, his government might consider alcohol, to the horror of the President of the Treasury Board who took his arm and motioned him to stop talking. It is unbelievable how far removed this government is from reality.

Does the Prime Minister realize that by letting his Minister of Health, his Minister for Nova Scotia, a man who does not know anything about the economic situation in Quebec, go on like this, his government is turning on a sector that is in good shape in Quebec at the present time? Why is the minister attacking what works in Quebec? Is it because, in the final instance, the Prime Minister is upset when Quebec is doing well?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to repeat that we are not taking away the possibility of advertising. We are making regulations to ensure it has the least possible impact on young people in Quebec, those who are most at risk.

It is reported that the average age at which people start to smoke regularly in Quebec is 14. In Quebec, people start to smoke at an earlier age than anywhere else in the country. That is why we are taking steps to try to protect young people against the dangers of starting to smoke at too early an age.

Events can still be held. Advertising will be regulated as it is in France. As the U.S. President said in his State of the Union message a few weeks ago, he intends to do the same. Above all, we must protect the health of our young people. In Canada some advertising will be allowed, although some countries are going to prohibit advertising altogether.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is so keen on going ahead with this bill because he wants to save his party and the minister who urged people to vote against the Liberals if the legislation was not passed before the next election. That is the real problem.

Will the Prime Minister agree that his minister's stubbornness is not about health and very much about political concerns?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau said that by voting in favour of this bill at second reading, the official opposition agreed with its objectives, and more specifically with protecting the health of young people under 18.

On December 5, 1996, the hon. member for Lévis said: "Since we agree with most of the government's objectives regarding a reduction in health costs associated with tobacco use, we will support the bill". And so on and so forth.

The hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies said that on the other hand, it was obvious that sponsored cultural and sports events as such were safe pursuits that might even encourage young people who wanted to smoke to engage in sports activities.

It was the members opposite who told the Minister of Health in December to go ahead. Today, for purely electoral reasons, without any consideration for protecting the health of young Quebecers, they have changed their minds. Quebecers know that the health of young people is important.